HomeMy WebLinkAbout17000290361012_Variances_11-30-2005U-SO-zoos'
OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER
OTTER TAIL MINNESOTA ^
1 hereby certify that 3
this instrument -----------——was filed/recorded in this office
for record on the-*? tb—day of
prr 2005 atii^iSam^
Recorder
Deputy
It/, aP hi/ recording fee
weii certificate3
THE ABOVE SPACE IS RESERVED FOR THE COUNTY RECORDER
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
COUNTY OF OTTER TAIL
GOVERNMENT SERVICES CENTER
540 WEST FIR, FERGUS FALLS, MN 56537
(218) 998-8095
Otter Tail County’s Website: www.co.ottertail.mn.us
_. J o ^ _Application Fee 6 OQ /TY r~
Receipt Number / .3* Py/ Q
Accepted By / Date 9/o. ?
218-863-1970
701-261-3599 (cell)
COMPLETE THIS APPLICATION IN BLACK INK
PROPERTY OWNER David Butenhoff DAYTIME PHONE
MAILING ADDRESS 22495 Seifert Beach Road. Pelican Rapids. MN 56572
Lizze56-760 RDLAKE NUMBER LAKE NAME LAKE CLASS
RANGE 42SECTION 29 TOWNSHIP 137 TOWNSHIP NAME Dunn
PARCEL
NUMBER
E-9i1
ADDRESS 22495 Seifert Beach Road, Pelican Rapid;
---------------------------------------------MPT 56572
17-000-99-1232-000 and
1/-UUU-Z9-0361-012
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lot 30, Seifert's Beach - not to be split with Pt GL4 com most nwly cor Lot 30 Seifert
Bch, N 58 deg W 66.1' to bg N 58 deg W 200' S 34 deg W 65.1' S 58 deg E 200' N 34 deg
E 65.03' to bg(#361-012 & #1232 not to be split)
TYPE OF VARIANCE REQUESTED (Please Check) After-the-fact Variance for Impervious
Coverage requirement and site permit/variance for a structure (hot tub) on a substandard lot. Structure SetbacK____Structure Size____Sewage System____ Subdivision____ Cluster____ Misc. ^
SPECIFY HOW YOUR PROJECT VARIES FROM ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. PLEASE BE BREIF AS
THIS WILL BE USED FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION.
I am requesting an after-the-fact variance for impervious coverage requirement,
because it exceeds the impervious coverage requirement under the Ordinance. I am
also seeking a site permit/variance for a structure (hot tub) on the substandard
lot.
I UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE APPLIED FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SHORELAND
MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE/SUBDIVISION CONTROLS ORDINANCE OF OTTER TAIL COUNTY.
i ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT OTHER PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED, IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTACT LAND &
RESOURCtMANAGEMENT REGARDING THIS MATTER.
f)
^TY\(DATESIGNATURE OF PROP OWNER
APPLICANT MUST BE PRESENT AT THE HEARING(Applicant Will Receive Notification As To The Date/Time Of Hearing)
Date Of Hearing Time
Motion
David Butenhoff- Denied. (7:52 p.m.)
After discussion and consideration, Leona Zimmerman made a motion, second by Cecil Femling and carried with Paul
Larson voting no, to deny the variance as requested as no adequate hardship unique to the property had been shown
that would allow for the granting of the variance as requested and noting that the denial of the variance as requested
is consistent with past Board actions.
airman/otter Tail Count/Board of Adjustment
Permit(s) required from Land & Resource Management
Yes (Contact Land & Resource Management)
No
Copy of Application Mailed to Applicant, Co. Assessor and the MN DNR
L R Official/Date
bk 0204-001
317,340 • Victor Lundeen Co., Printers • Fergus Falls, Minnesota
J
GRID PLOT PLAN feet SKETCHING FORMScale: gridfst equals rQO feet, or inch(es) equals
II-9-20I1S'19 X O^-A.4^Dated:
#Signature
Please sketch your lot indicating setbacks from road right-of-way, lake, sideyard and septic tank and drain-
field for each building currently on lot and any proposed structures.
iCfFT
------—
Of
281,949 • Viciof Lur*deen Co. Printers • Fergus Falls. MN • 1-800-346-4870MKL — 0871 — 029
November 30, 2005
Page # 3
Joseph and Cecile Olson - Approved as modified. (7:30 p.m.)
Joseph and Cecile Olson, part of Government Lot 3, Section 21 of Otter Tail Township by Otter Tail Lake,
requested the following: a 5’ setback from the northeast property line adjoining the wayside rest, instead of
the 10’ setback, a 12’ setback from the road right-of way instead of the 20’ requirement and a variance to
go 8’ closer to the lake than the existing distance of the current dwelling. Ron Malone appeared with the
applicant at the public hearing. The audience was polled with Jerry Smith and Jim Haahr speaking for the
variance as requested. An email from the Minnesota Department of Transportation recommending a 10’
road right-of-way setback was read for the record. A letter from Tim Griep, Assistant Administrator, stating
that the applicants’ property is not in a bluff area and noting the structure setbacks on the adjacent lots was
read for the record. After discussion and consideration, Randall Mann made a motion, second y Steve
Schierer and unanimously carried, to approve a variance of 5’ from the required side lot line setback of 10’
and a variance of 8’ from the required road right-of-way setback of 20’ for the placement of the proposed
development 5’ from the northeast property line, 12’ from the road right-of-way and no closer to the
ordinary high water level than the existing dwelling, excluding the deck. The variance as approved should
place the proposed dwelling approximately 60’ from the ordinary high water level and will provide the
applicants with a reasonable use of there property. Hardship is a substandard lot of record and the terrain
of the applicants’ property.
David Butenhoff- Denied. (7:52 p.m.)
David Butenhoff, Lot 30 Seifert’s Beach and part of Government Lot 4, Section 29 of Dunn Township by
Pelican Lake, requested the following: I am requesting an after-the-fact variance for impervious coverage
requirement, because it exceeds the impervious coverage requirement under the ordinance. I am also
seeking a site permit/variance for a structure (hot tub) on the substandard lot. Maximum allowable
impervious surface coverage is 25% of the total lot area. Per an attachment to the application impervious
surface coverage is currently 38%. The audience was polled with Lila Stubstad and Duane Seifert
speaking for the variance as requested. Letters from the following individuals in support of the variance as
requested were read for the record: T.C. Potter, Larry Lepird, Fred and Delores Kvamme, Diane Trapp,
Robert Scott, Carroll and Lila Stubstad and Donna Lindholm. After discussion and consideration, Leona
Zimmerman made a motion, second by Cecil Femling and carried with Paul Larson voting no, to deny the
variance as requested as no adequate hardship unique to the property had been shown that would allow
for the granting of the variance as requested and noting that the denial of the variance as requested is
consistent with past Board actions.
Gary and Cynthia Morsch - Approved the variance as requested. (8:13 p.m.)
Gary and Cynthia Morsch, Lot 10 Camp Nidaros, Otter Tail Lake in Amor Township, requested the
following: The original plat, provided with the 1991 purchase of our cabin, was used to layout and place
footings for a new retirement home. The plat provided ample property to conform to all required setbacks.
After the footings were placed, a neighbor showed us a 1968 survey that reduced our lot size from 101.5’
at the rear to 98.8T and at the shoreline from 103’ to 89.19’. This discovery put us out of compliance with
the required 20’ setback from the private alley. We immediately halted further construction on the garage
and ordered a survey of the property and footings to determine minimum variance dimensions. The new
survey indicates that Lot 10 is now 98.9’ at the rear and 89.17’ at the shoreline. The footings intrude on the
20’ private alley setback by 3.14’ in the back and by 4.29’ in the front. An architectural redesign and new
footings would present a financial hardship. We are seeking relief from the 20’ private alley setback
requirement by the above amounts. The audience was polled with no one speaking for or against the
variance as requested. A letter from Elizabeth A Storaasli and Carolyn Nestingen in opposition to the
variance as requested was read for the record. After discussion and consideration, Randall Mann made a
motion, second by Steve Schierer and carried with Paul Larson voting no, to approve the variance as
requested and as depicted on the registered surveyor’s drawing dated November 7, 2005. The Board
noted that the structure is 20’ away from the driving surface, the proposed location of the structure does not
present any safety issues and does not obstruct view from the adjoining properties. The variance as
approved is consistent with past Board actions.
Dear Board of Adjustment Members:
I submit this after-the-fact variance request from the impervious coverage requirement as set
forth in the Otter Tail County Zoning Ordinance. This application is the end result of our
discovery of my fiancee, Joan Jandt's, diagnosis of severe and permanent degeneration of her
knee joints which has resulted in pain, medication, and great restriction of activity including her
use of a walker. I was told at that time that she should avoid uneven ground due to her disability
and enclose a letter from her doctor, Mark Askew, as to that effect.
My property is located somewhat on the incline and base of a hill with uneven ground. This
unevenness was further increased when the original public road was raised approximately four
feet creating a greater incline to my property. I felt it necessary to expand the driveway, provide
an even sidewalk along the side, expand the patio and provide a sidewalk down to the waterfront
because of my fiancee’s disability and the unique topography of the land. However, prior to
proceeding with any improvements, I did contact and speak with a female representative of Otter
Tail County Land and Resource Department and explained to her my intent as to the expanded
patio and sidewalk. She informed me, or what I now see as misinformed me, that I could just
proceed with these improvements without getting approval from Land and Resource
Management, which I did. Over a year after these improvements were made, the county
inspector inspected my site and notified me that I am in violation of the impervious coverage
requirement. He had drawn out a sketch as to location of impervious ground and also a
calculation of 38% of impervious coverage, which I also enclose. I do not dispute the inspector's
measurements or calculations, but do point out the fact that I was misinformed and although I
understand that ignorance of the regulations is not necessarily an excuse, I do believe that we
suffer from an undue hardship due to the nature of the topography of our land, which was further
increased by the road being raised, and my fiancee’s disability. I want to provide reasonable use
of the property for my fiance.
Also, when I learned of my fiance's disability, I purchased and put a hot tub on the property for
the therapeutic effect based on instruction from her doctor. The inspector has informed me that
the hot tub is 49" and therefore a structure and that this hot tub is also being included as part of
the impervious coverage.
If need be, I am willing to make some concessions; however, I do believe the impervious surface
is necessary for my fiance's access to the property and removal will greatly impede and provide
difficulty to my fiance in her degenerative disability.
I enclose letters from my surrounding neighbors all in support of my request and the need for the
impervious coverage for my fiance's access. 1 would also note that my property and neighboring
properties have never had an issue or problem of runoff or drainage either before or after these
improvements were made.
I would also note to the board that the county improved raising the road almost four feet from
where it used to set further increasing the steepness of my lot and adding to the need for an even
ground for my fiance.
1 believe that this serves as an unique hardship and warrants an after-the-fact variance and
respectfully request the board's approval of my request.
V.Sincerely,
David Buttenhoff
- September 19, 2005, Doctor’s letter
- Sketch and calculations made by inspector
Enclosures